For Alligator Alcatraz to be an internment camp, the bulk of its inmates would need to be there for being ethnic Latino, rather than for breaking immigration laws.
First off, this bit... That's a no-true-scotsman and a false dichotomy.
Something can be both an internment camp AND a prison. The majority of members do not need to be "interned" for a camp to be an internment camp. Otherwise, a country could just throw up "prisons", intern large tracts of its population in those "prisons", and then claim they have no internment camps because most of the people there are "prisoners".
That doesn't pass the smell test in that they would still be internment camps
camouflaged as prisons.
If someone is grabbed by ICE on suspicion of breaking immigration laws, and is then denied due process, and denied any opportunity to show that they did not break those laws, then they are there for looking like an illegal immigrant, in the opinion of ICE officers.
False-dilemma fallacy.
Secondly, no, it's not a false dilemma. It is very clearly going to be true that if someone is grabbed on mere suspicion, and that suspicion is based on how they appear and speak, then denied due process, then their arrest and detainment IS entirely for "looking like or speaking like, in the opinion of an ICE officer".
There is nothing false about that.
And it has happened many times.
If I rolled up on you and arrested and deported you because I thought you looked shifty, you would have objections to that, I'm sure. Any rhetoric attempting to step away from that fact is stinking bullshit and we all know it.
It's almost like you are a dishonest, bad-faith debater.
That's closer to being there "for being ethnic Latino" than it is to being there "for breaking immigration laws".
About 90% of the Latinos in America are citizens or have green cards. If ICE were generally sending people to AA for looking like an illegal immigrant, then about 90% of the inmates would be expected to be citizens or have green cards.
No, about 90% of initial detainment would be. Some would have people outside capable of enforcing due process, and of getting them back (like we did with my coworker). As a result, those numbers of green card holders will be significantly lower than 90%, granted we don't know what the numbers are at any stage because
ICE is spurning oversight.
Do you think about 90% of the inmates are citizens or have green cards?
I think it's a bullshit question designed by a bullshit-slopist (I would say artist, but there's nothing artistic about your bullshit, it's just
regurgitated).
A person who has been imprisoned and denied due process, is not there for breaking laws at all - at least, not if the principle of the presumption of innocence is still a foundation of the law.
Are you under the impression that the principle of the presumption of innocence is
a scientific discovery of anthropologists?!?
It's a foundation of US law, whatever else it is, so I am smelling some false dichotomy here.
The presumption of innocence is a functional necessity of a free society.
It is a normative principle that evolved to serve the goal of preventing tyranny.
No, it is a
functional principle. It is a principle whose application
works, and which works for an ostensible
reason.
You are confusing the belief in and the theory of "innocence until proven guilty" with the phenomena thereof.
It is an "ought". You are attempting to derive an "is" from an "ought". How does that work?
From deep abstraction, generalization, and the extraction of the properties of "assumed oughts".
I've walked you through this a few times, but you seem incapable of understanding those few walk-throughs, so I'm going to assume you aren't worth the time this time.
Historically, mankind has had laws thousands of years longer than we've had due process and presumption of innocence.
And we can observe that for thousands of years before that, tyranny and mere suspicion rather than the actual breaking of laws resulted in many innocent people being punished for breaking laws they did not.
Clearly, it means that the process of legal oversight was more broken than it is now.
You're arguing in effect that nobody in ancient Babylon was ever in a dungeon for breaking Hammurabi's laws.
No, and that's again a false dichotomy, it's not either/or.
Rather, he is arguing that ENOUGH people were in dungeons for not breaking any laws but the mere suspicion thereof, and that this is an abuse.
Otherwise, I could just roll up on you under the suspicion of being an insurrectionist fascist, throw you in jail, and you should be happy about that, right?
Why the fuck are we even debating this, though? Are you seriously debating whether Innocent until Proven Guilty is a useful metric? Is that where we are?
That's some fascistic tyrannical bullshit you're supporting, and while I always hoped you wouldn't, at the end, I always expected that you would support it when the time came. And here you are!
www.theguardian.com
www.biometricupdate.com
